Jose/ansible_role_proxmox_provision
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

refactor ♻️: Refactor event triggers for workflows #24

Closed
Jose wants to merge 0 commits from dev into main
pull from: dev
merge into: Jose:main
Conversation 3 Commits - Files Changed - +24 -2
Jose commented 2026-02-14 11:10:04 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Updated the ansible-lint and markdown-lint workflows by adding new event types (opened) to their issue triggers.

Updated the `ansible-lint` and `markdown-lint` workflows by adding new event types (`opened`) to their issue triggers.
Jose added 1 commit 2026-02-14 11:10:04 +01:00
refactor ♻️: Refactor event triggers for workflows
All checks were successful
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 11s
Details
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
Details
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
Details
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 14s
Details
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Successful in 4s
Details
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 13s
Details
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Successful in 2s
Details
18e0ed96ea 
Updated the `ansible-lint` and `markdown-lint` workflows by adding new event types (`opened`) to their issue triggers.
gitea-actions bot reviewed 2026-02-14 11:10:38 +01:00
gitea-actions bot left a comment
Copy Link

Review Summary

  • .gitea/workflows/ansible-lint.yml: This change separates the triggering events for the workflow (push and open issues) into separate lines, which improves readability. However, it could potentially lead to unexpected behavior if the events are not intended to be separated. I would suggest discussing this with the team or adding a comment explaining the intent. - File: .gitea/workflows/ansible-lint.yml - Context: OLD: -on: [issues, push] and new lines 5-9 - StartLine: 5 - EndLine: 9 - Comment: [Score: 3] Separating events might lead to unexpected behavior if not intended. Consider adding a comment for clarity.
  • .gitea/workflows/markdown-lint.yml: Changes in the workflow file for Markdown Lint: The workflow is now triggered on both 'push' and 'issues' events, specifically when issues are opened. This modification ensures that the linter checks newly created issues immediately. However, there seems to be a discrepancy in the syntax of the on section. In the new version, the event triggers are defined inside another list, which is not required and might lead to confusion or unexpected behavior. Suggestion: Instead of: yaml on: push: issues: types: [opened] Use this cleaner version: yaml on: push: issue: types: [opened] Score: 2 (Optimization suggestion)
# Review Summary * **.gitea/workflows/ansible-lint.yml**: This change separates the triggering events for the workflow (push and open issues) into separate lines, which improves readability. However, it could potentially lead to unexpected behavior if the events are not intended to be separated. I would suggest discussing this with the team or adding a comment explaining the intent. - File: .gitea/workflows/ansible-lint.yml - Context: OLD: -on: [issues, push] and new lines 5-9 - StartLine: 5 - EndLine: 9 - Comment: [Score: 3] Separating events might lead to unexpected behavior if not intended. Consider adding a comment for clarity. * **.gitea/workflows/markdown-lint.yml**: **Changes in the workflow file for Markdown Lint:** The workflow is now triggered on both 'push' and 'issues' events, specifically when issues are opened. This modification ensures that the linter checks newly created issues immediately. However, there seems to be a discrepancy in the syntax of the `on` section. In the new version, the event triggers are defined inside another list, which is not required and might lead to confusion or unexpected behavior. **Suggestion:** Instead of: ```yaml on: push: issues: types: [opened] ``` Use this cleaner version: ```yaml on: push: issue: types: [opened] ``` **Score: 2 (Optimization suggestion)**
Jose added 1 commit 2026-02-14 11:58:30 +01:00
feat ✨: Add logic to update PR comments and labels based on CI results
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Failing after 7s
Details
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 5s
Details
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 18s
Details
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
Details
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Successful in 4s
Details
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Failing after 8s
Details
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Successful in 2s
Details
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
5ff377223a 
This commit introduces new functionality that updates pull request comments and labels automatically based on the outcomes of continuous integration tests. This enhances the efficiency and visibility of the review process by providing immediate feedback directly within the PR interface.
gitea-actions bot reviewed 2026-02-14 11:59:00 +01:00
gitea-actions bot left a comment
Copy Link

Review Summary

  • .gitea/workflows/ansible-lint.yml: Changes in the provided git diff focus on refactoring the workflow triggers in the ansible-lint.yml file for GitHub Actions. This refactor separates the triggers for 'push' and 'issues' events, making the configuration clearer and potentially more flexible. However, there are no major issues or performance bottlenecks found with a score >= 2. Thus, the changes look good.
  • .gitea/workflows/markdown-lint.yml: This change separates the trigger events for the workflow into distinct sections for push and issue events. This improves readability and maintainability of the workflow configuration file. However, it might have unintended consequences since the original 'on' line was removed without any replacement. It could lead to the workflow not being triggered in specific scenarios that were covered by the previous setup.
  • .gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml: Changes Added for CI Pass Label Check and Addition: This addition checks if the "ci-pass" label is not present on a pull request. If it's missing, it adds the label to indicate that the CI passed successfully. This helps in maintaining and organizing pull requests based on their status.
# Review Summary * **.gitea/workflows/ansible-lint.yml**: Changes in the provided git diff focus on refactoring the workflow triggers in the `ansible-lint.yml` file for GitHub Actions. This refactor separates the triggers for 'push' and 'issues' events, making the configuration clearer and potentially more flexible. However, there are no major issues or performance bottlenecks found with a score >= 2. Thus, the changes look good. * **.gitea/workflows/markdown-lint.yml**: This change separates the trigger events for the workflow into distinct sections for push and issue events. This improves readability and maintainability of the workflow configuration file. However, it might have unintended consequences since the original 'on' line was removed without any replacement. It could lead to the workflow not being triggered in specific scenarios that were covered by the previous setup. * **.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml**: Changes Added for CI Pass Label Check and Addition: This addition checks if the "ci-pass" label is not present on a pull request. If it's missing, it adds the label to indicate that the CI passed successfully. This helps in maintaining and organizing pull requests based on their status.
.gitea/workflows/markdown-lint.yml
@@ -2,7 +2,10 @@
# .gitea/workflows/markdown-lint.yml
gitea-actions bot commented 2026-02-14 11:59:00 +01:00
Copy Link

[Score: 3] Removing the 'on' line without replacement could potentially break the workflow triggering if it was previously set to other events besides issues and push. Consider adding a new line to specify those events explicitly or ensure that the original configuration covered all necessary cases.

[Score: 3] Removing the 'on' line without replacement could potentially break the workflow triggering if it was previously set to other events besides issues and push. Consider adding a new line to specify those events explicitly or ensure that the original configuration covered all necessary cases.
gitea-actions bot commented 2026-02-14 11:59:22 +01:00
Copy Link

❌ CI checks failed.

Leak: success
Lint: failure

<!--ci-failed-comment--> ❌ CI checks failed. Leak: success Lint: failure
gitea-actions bot closed this pull request 2026-02-14 11:59:22 +01:00
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Failing after 7s
Details
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 5s
Details
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 18s
Details
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
Details
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Successful in 4s
Details
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Failing after 8s
Details
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Successful in 2s
Details
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
Documentation
bug
Something is not working
 ci-failed
action test workflow failed
 ci-pass
action test workflow pass
 duplicate
This issue or pull request already exists
 enhancement
New feature
 help wanted
Need some help
 invalid
Something is wrong
 question
More information is needed
 source
wontfix
This won't be fixed
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
Jose
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Jose/ansible_role_proxmox_provision#24
Delete Branch "dev"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?